NRA sez, “Why do the president’s kids get armed guards and ours don’t?”

No, seriously, they actually said that.

Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. But he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids, and gun-free zones for ours.

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

48 comments for “NRA sez, “Why do the president’s kids get armed guards and ours don’t?”

  1. JBL55
    January 18, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    I’d call them pond scum, but that would be an insult to actual pond scum.

  2. January 18, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    They have a point. albeit twisted.

    I wouldn’t want armed guards around my kids, and I’d be pretty ticked if my kids’ school changed from a gun-free zone to one with armed men in it all because the president’s kids go there.

    • Lolagirl
      January 18, 2013 at 4:43 pm

      No, they really don’t.

      If you are going to sit there and deny that the President’s children are at a unique risk for those who intend to do them harm or harm to this country through them then you are either a liar or severely deluded. I deeply despise guns and our culture of violence in this country, but that doesn’t prevent me from realizing that others feel differently from me and would stop at nothing to do horrible things with firearms. Which is why the only people who should have access to firearms are those in law enforcement.

      • January 18, 2013 at 8:00 pm

        I’m denying nothing. I’m saying that guns don’t belong in schools, and that perhaps that shouldn’t be compromised for the children of politicians.

      • January 18, 2013 at 10:09 pm

        I would be amazed if the Obama daughters, attending a private school in DC where many of the other parents also hold prominent public office, were the only children there whose parents consider bodyguards to be a regretful necessity. It’s not like they’re attending a normal public school with a normal threat level.

    • FashionablyEvil
      January 18, 2013 at 5:14 pm

      There are approximately 30 death threats against the President. Every. Day. Frankly, I would consider it irresponsible if Sasha and Malia Obama weren’t protected by armed guards.

    • Learned Foot
      January 19, 2013 at 12:24 am

      In any case, the students at Sidwell Friends school aren’t protected by armed guards either. That is a total fabrication that originated with Breitbart. The school has clarified that their security personnel are not armed (not surprising at a Quaker school). The only people with guns are the small protection detail who are there for Sasha and Malia. And BTW, Secret Service protection for the President and the President’s spouse and minor children is legally *mandated* by Congress because of the very real threats that others in this thread have mentioned. The children of the President of U.S. face threats to their safety and security that are completely different from any other child in the country.

      I totally agree about not wanting guns in my kids’ school. But I live about 10 minutes from this school, and several of my acquaintances from elementary school went their for middle and high school. Every single parent who signs their kids up for school at Sidwell Friends knows that there is a good chance that some student will be under major security. The President’s kids go there, as do the children of lots of diplomats and “famous for DC” folks.

  3. EG
    January 18, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?

    Wait, is the NRA suggesting putting the Secret Service in all the schools? Because that’s very different than just hiring some dude with a gun.

    I can’t even believe the level of willful assholery in this whole thing.

    • Past my expiration date
      January 18, 2013 at 6:54 pm

      Wait, is the NRA suggesting putting the Secret Service in all the schools?

      Yes. If the president’s two children get around-the-clock Secret Service protection, then why shouldn’t my two children? And every one of the other 74 million children in the US? Anything less would be elitist hypocrisy!

      (Note: I do not actually believe this.)

      • Past my expiration date
        January 18, 2013 at 6:55 pm

        Drat. Block quote fail.

    • thefish
      January 19, 2013 at 4:39 pm

      Yeah, putting secret service grade protection in every school? Okay. Not an efficient use of limited resources, but not really actively bad. Putting a random guy with a gun in school? Not good.

      • jennygadget
        January 19, 2013 at 6:26 pm

        yes, this. This was pretty much my reaction too.

        I mean, it’s still a stupid idea because it’s a waste of resources and training, but at least it’s not nearly as actively dangerous.

  4. Foxy
    January 18, 2013 at 11:35 pm

    Ofcourse we all know obamas children are more valuable than all those children he assasinated in pakistan

    • January 19, 2013 at 2:16 am

      Foxy, is it time for me to tell you to stahp again?

      • William
        January 19, 2013 at 2:54 am

        You’ve got the patient of a saint. A fabulously snarky saint.

      • January 19, 2013 at 9:14 am


      • Foxy
        January 19, 2013 at 5:49 am

        @mac,what else can i expect an obama apologist like you.

      • January 19, 2013 at 9:12 am

        Sweetie, are you seriously claiming that I would ever apologise for the actions of the US government or anyone who heads it? I thought you read comments, here.

        *giggling like a loon*

    • karak
      January 19, 2013 at 2:20 pm

      They are actually. Your statement proves it: Obama, their father, has the power over the world’s strongest military and the ability to act with impunity. His children are far, far more important than most others.

      Or, to turn your point on it’s head: if it’s immoral for Pakistani children to be killed, how is it any less immoral for American children to be killed? Shouldn’t all children in danger be protected? Or do you view certain children, like the children of politicians you don’t like, less worthy of life? Does the fact they can access protection prove that they “deserve” to die, for the crimes of their parents, and their parents’ wealth and power?

      Or you do simply like to ask “deep” questions without actually considering what your questions are actually suggesting?

      • librarygoose
        January 19, 2013 at 3:23 pm

        Exactly this. So much so that I want to hand this out to the douches I hear spouting this shit.

      • Foxy
        January 19, 2013 at 9:54 pm

        @karak,if obama is so worried about childrens death,he should act on cutting down drones.Otherwise this is a cynical ploy to push for gun control

      • EG
        January 20, 2013 at 2:02 am

        This NRA commercial is a cynical ploy on the part of Obama to push for gun control?

        You’re making even less sense than usual.

    • Marcie
      January 21, 2013 at 5:45 am

      He didn’t assassinate those children, the US voters did.

  5. yes
    January 19, 2013 at 2:05 am

    Why do they get to live in a big, white house and your kids don’t? How come their dad gets to veto bills, but yours can’t?

    • William
      January 19, 2013 at 2:10 am

      What is power, Alex?

  6. William
    January 19, 2013 at 2:16 am

    Yet another reason why the NRA becomes increasingly irrelevant as anything other than a source of funding for local grass roots efforts and litigation. In trying to be clever and moderate they’ve managed to be foolish. Somehow, though, they’re still demonstrably more effective at advocating for their cause than their opponents. I mean, the SAF and Gura can take credit for the recent SCOTUS victories on self defense and keeping arms (not to mention the very likely coming victories on bearing arms), but the NRA did a hell of a job with carefully developing the national legal consensus that made Illinois vulnerable.

  7. Rick
    January 19, 2013 at 8:01 am

    Most are missing the point…its not about the Presidents children. The question one would ask is”if a person started shooting children in your school, then would you want an armed person there to stop them before your child is shot?”

    • SDB
      January 19, 2013 at 9:18 am

      The collateral psychological damage my child would suffer from constant exposure to the deliberate threat of violence during their formative years is not something I can consent to. My child is not at war. There is no war, in fact. Why should my child be expected to grow up thinking otherwise?

      The statistical chance of my child being mowed down while at school is extremely low. It is an acceptable risk to me.

      • William
        January 19, 2013 at 1:20 pm

        And yet, every public high school in Chicago has at least a couple of armed, uniformed cops assigned to them and most public schools in the area have a squad car assigned to hang out during dismissal. Hell, my high school had cops and metal detectors fifteen years ago.

        But these discussions never are about the urban causes of violence. No, that would be a difficult discussion. We’d have to think about how every system we have routinely fails huge segments of the population. We’d have to think about the role poverty plays in leading to 500 people getting murdered in a year in Chicago. We’d have to question this drug war we have and the school-to-prison pipeline it uses to feed the PIC. We’d have to think about how our educational systems are often explicitly designed to disenfranchise the people who need them most. Its safer to just focus on outliers like mass shootings, pointless gestures cynically designed to satisfy the base, and bizarre comparisons of a secret service detail to violent thugs police in schools.

    • EG
      January 19, 2013 at 9:34 am

      If it’s not about the President’s children, then don’t bring them up. And don’t efface the difference between “would I want members of the Secret Service dedicated to protecting my kids there” and “would I want some rent-a-cop with a gun and some hero fantasy there.”

      • William
        January 19, 2013 at 10:39 am

        Given whats going on at the local level and some of the other, more quiet, advocacy I’m seeing I suspect that this idea of armed guards in schools is something of a feint. The larger longer term goal, and the one which self defense rights orgs have had some success in pursuing, is to do away with the idea of “gun free” zones and arm teachers and administrators. Even as hard core as I am I’m not terribly enamored with the idea and I find it pretty problematic, but thats still the longer term goal. Remember, the NRA managed to take carry from a weird thing you can do out west to something present in all 50 states (with the new battle being litigation against restrictive permit states like New York and California) not by getting the president to do anything but by gradually passing laws in friendly states to normalize the idea, using that normalization to gather data to pressure neutral states into passing carry laws, using aggressive local grass-roots orgs to fight for carry in hostile states, and then Gura used the consensus that had developed to successfully attack Illinois in the courts. The exact same strategy is being used for arming teachers today. An ad like this is a public misstep, sure, but the larger dance is still going on.

      • Past my expiration date
        January 19, 2013 at 1:27 pm

        I think you’re right, William, and damn that’s scary.

      • William
        January 19, 2013 at 5:13 pm

        Its not the early 90s anymore. The rules have changed. I don’t think a lot of people in favor of gun control really understand the kind of game that gun rights folks are playing and what some of the goals of the movement actually are. New York handed gun rights groups a major gift with this latest round of legislation because they passed laws that are going to fail constitutional tests and generate precedents to push the borders out even further. I’m not sure that a case like Wilson v. Cook County would end in the federal courts throwing out an AWB, but New York’s law is incredibly vulnerable. That kind of a precedent is an enormous step and it makes some of the talk of going after the machine gun ban sound a lot less like fantasy. Now is the time for gun control advocates to try to make a deal with the NRA, not the other way around.

    • Li
      January 19, 2013 at 9:36 am

      Yeah, see, I don’t actually trust the people traditionally given these kinds of jobs (cops! security guards!) to not be the ones to do the shooting in the first place. I especially don’t trust them not to shoot kids of colour or disabled kids. So, um, nice rhetorical trick there, but I still don’t want machines designed to murder people around children.

    • librarygoose
      January 19, 2013 at 3:20 pm

      Once again, the guy (a cop, no less) who did have a gun on my high school campus lost it TWICE while I was a student. Twice that gun was not on a “responsible” adult. Once it was actually stolen.

  8. Angie unduplicated
    January 19, 2013 at 8:22 am

    Some school districts need armed guards in schools. Here in the hometown of bully victim Tyler Long, we’ve already had an incident of a boy carrying a sawed-off shotgun on the school bus. The county police were called out to disarm him. SROs-school resource officers-are assigned to Chattanooga schools. Scared students all over this country, and their parents, may well be envious of the Obama children’s protection. The NRA is playing to this constituency, and unfortunately, racists will take full advantage of their ad campaign.

  9. Foxy
    January 19, 2013 at 8:33 am

    It is distasteful obama is using death of children for political mileage.The gun control lobby in action

    • Past my expiration date
      January 19, 2013 at 8:58 am

      It is distasteful obama is using death of children for political mileage

      Says the person who not 12 hours ago said

      Ofcourse we all know obamas children are more valuable than all those children he assasinated in pakistan

      • Past my expiration date
        January 19, 2013 at 9:15 am

        Or — I know! Maybe it’s only distasteful when Obama does it!

      • Foxy
        January 19, 2013 at 10:53 am

        All those children blown into pieces from drone attacks on schools and weddings never matter for obama.Drone control rather than gun control results in greater decline in violence

      • amblingalong
        January 19, 2013 at 4:43 pm

        All those children blown into pieces from drone attacks on schools and weddings never matter for obama.

        It is distasteful obama is using death of children for political mileage.

        But… what… but the… wha?

    • karak
      January 19, 2013 at 2:23 pm

      It is distasteful that you cannot use proper punctuation and make several comments. I think we’ve all been disappointed in this day.

      • Foxy
        January 19, 2013 at 9:43 pm

        @karak,my failure to use punctuation is similar to obamas use of drones.Great analogy

      • EG
        January 20, 2013 at 2:05 am

        Similar in its lack of relevance to this post, yes.

  10. Sillyme
    January 20, 2013 at 9:07 am

    Why does he get to command an army and I dont xd

  11. Henry
    January 21, 2013 at 3:34 am

    Just park a police car in front of the schools, much better than wasting them on speed traps or harassing people with stop and frisk. 30% of our schools already have this. Doing this is not a replacement for gun control, it’s part of what every school district is going through now – analyzing their safety plans because we has a nation with 310 Million privately owned firearms which will not be off the streets ever. I just hope AR-15s are poorly built so they don;t last 100+ years like some antique rifles do.

  12. SV
    January 21, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    Why does my doctor prescribe drugs for other patients that I am apparently not entitled to? Why are other patients allowed to get chemo just because they have cancer? I bet Obama has had medical treatments that I haven’t had! Where’s my fair share! Elitist hypocrite!

  13. Joselie
    January 25, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    I don’t think the guards are there to protect the girls from run of the mill criminals. When you are a high profile politician, not only are you and you alone at risk of assassination attempts…there are evil people in the world and evil people sometimes prefer to make their enemies suffer and how do they do that? They hurt their loved ones. For all the [redacted]s that claim that Obama should set an example by removing those guards need to understand that his children are at far greater risk of being hurt because of who their father is and for that reason alone, need that kind of protection.

Comments are closed.